tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN November 15, 2011 10:00am-1:00pm EST
probably worked in concert. host: any thoughts on what you think mr. demarco from the federal housing finance agency will be testifying about today? guest: no idea. that is one tool in our arsenal to help people avoid foreclosure. we are very thankful to the program, but we have seen a higher number of loan modifications where refinancing does not make sense. host: live now to the house floor for morning speeches. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. november 15, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable allen b. west to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives.
the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the minority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each, but in know event shall debate continue -- no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. americans are understandably frustrated by the political process. attention is appropriately directed to the version of senate rules that slow the senate's legislative process to a crawl with very real consequences of the ability of the federal government to function. concern's also been expressed about the house of representatives, the health
care debate revealed the deepest of divisions and some of the most inflammatory language and action in history. the budget battles of the 112th congress, especially the artificial crisis surrounding meeting our debt ceiling obligations, extend and amplify that trend. experts across the political spectrum agree that part of this divisiveness arises from the very nature of congressional districts. both parties have developed into an art form the ability to manipulate redistricting, packing partisans of a single party, punishing opponents, and protecting incumbents. just look at the maps published in "roll call" this week, the five ugliest districts, partisan gerrymandering 101. sadly it's practiced by both political parties. we should all be concerned when politicians have more influence picking their voters than
voters have picking their politicians. now, some progress has been made to insulate the redistricting process by creating a few independent commissions and some guidelines. but the problems persist. look what's happened in florida to try and circumvent those reforms. more recently the actions of arizona governor brewer firing the independent head of the supposedly independent commission. the process he remains woefully inadequate, highly politicized, and subject to what normal people would regard as political abuse. for many politicians the temptation to place partisan objectives above the public interest is just too tempting. in the last decade, we saw the culmination of this trend in 2003 when texas conducted a hyper partisan mid decade second reapportionment process. americans deserve better.
congressional representation should not be a political blood sport that protects incumbents, disenfranchises legitimate interests, and allows people to achieve with surgical reapportionment what they couldn't do honestly at the ballot box. as we approach the 50th anniversary of the landmark baker versus carr supreme court case that required one person, one vote, it's time to revisit that process. i would propose that we would establish a national commission composed much ex-presidents, retired federal justices, previous congressional leaders housed in an independent professional agency not unlike what iowa has done successfully for decades. these distinguished and independent experts would establish uniform criteria and congressional district lines for each state to respect the communities of interest, the ethnic, cultural, and historic boundaries rather than just partisan affiliation. indeed, we may even consider competitiveness to be a positive outcome.
it would then be approved by congress with an up or down vote like we do with base closing. we may even fix the outrage that denies american citizens of the district of columbia our nation's capital, with the voting representation. congress should enact these proposals now while the abuse of the process is clear in everyone's minds. well before the next census in 2020. the ebb and flow of our history has shown that highly political gerrymandering can backfire. political tides can change. nobody knows which party is going to be in charge 10 years from now. having a system that guarantees fairness will guard against the destructive and highly partisan maneuvering that we see now. americans deserve better. when citizens are treated fairly and all politicians play by the same rule, government works better. meaningful political reform is
seldom easy. it takes time to educate the public and policymakers and refine the concepts. i am hopeful there will be careful consideration of this proposal as a way to make the house of representatives fair, more representative, and more effective for this century given the challenges we face, america deserves no less. the speaker pro tempore: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: texans are concerned about many things but two things they are concerned about probably the most are jobs and energy. because, you see, in southeast texas, that's still the energy capital of the united states. i probably represent more refineries than any member of congress. an and there is an answer to jobs and energy and it's called, the transcanada pipeline, commonly called the keystone x.l. pipeline. the plan is for our allies in
canada to ship crude oil from alberta, canada through a pipeline, all the way from alberta canada down to port arthur, texas. most americans have never heard of port arthur texas, but it sits on the gulf coast, really close to the louisiana-texas border. it is part of that energy development going all the way back to spindle top days in 1901. energy capital of the world. and the plan has been for several years to ship that crude oil down to american refineries and have them refined. and that decision or that request to get a permit started about three years ago, and no decision has been reached yet on whether to build it or really not to build it. the latest development is the administration has decided, still, will not make a decision until 2013 after the elections. that's unfortunate, because these are times when we need
american jobs. and this pipeline would create american jobs in america. thousands of american jobs. and then there's related industry all up and down the area where the pipeline will be built to port arthur, texas. and then it will give us crude oil, energy that we can use from a stable ally instead of having to ship oil in from all over the world, middle east primarily, we will have a stable ally where we can bring crude oil into the united states. at about how much oil are we talking about? well, it's about 700,000 barrels a day. that's just a number. most people can't relate to that. i can't. that's about as much crude oil as we buy from venezuela and bring into the united states. when the pipeline is fully completed, it will be a million, 200,000 barrels a day. that's a real number. how much is that? that's about as much oil as we bring in from saudi arabia. and yet we could bring that in
from canada to our refineries in southeast, -- southeast texas. pipelines are the safest way to move crude oil. the safest way, mr. speaker. it's safer than rail. it's certainly safer than trucks. it's safer than bringing it in in ships from overseas. and it's safer than barges. because pipelines have a history of being the most environmentally safe, as they should be safe. and in fact the new pipelines that are developed are taking newer technology. they put a machine in the pipeline, it's called a pig machine, which goes through the pipeline with the crude oil and looks for dense or even small leaks which would automatically shut the pipeline down. nobody wants a leak in a pipeline. people who build it or the people who live in that area. but the administration has decided primarily the state department has decided, not to make a decision until 2013. the prime minister of canada is
very disappointed that the united states will not be a partner in this crude oil. -- crude oil development. and there is a country that will take that canadian crude oil and it's china. so we may not see the pipeline built from alberta to port arthur, texas, we may see that pipeline built from alberta to their west coast where they could pipe that crude oil off to the west coast and sell it and put it on tankers going to our buddies, the chinese. who are eager to take that crude oil. recently, however, there was a development that the pipeline folks, the transcanada people, who want to build the pipeline, have started to work with the legislature in nebraska, nebraska's primarily the holdup where the environmentalists have gone and said they can't build a pipeline here for a bunch of reasons and build it to the east, the northeast of nebraska. hopefully they will work out something. unfortunately the state department said last night or this morning, well, nothing has changed.
so it seems like delay, delay, delay is still the answer. we need to get our crude oil to our refineries some way. what is the answer? what is the answer for those who say that they don't want a pipeline? there is no answer. and until we get to that green energy that we all want to get to eventually, we have to get that crude oil and have it refined not only into gasoline and jet fuel but the byproducts, plastics that we all use. and the answer, mr. speaker, i think is, we need to pick a horse and ride it. sign up and build that pipeline immediately. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, for five minutes. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, last month the congressional budget office released a report that examined household income distribution between 1979 and 2007. the most disturbing figure to me in this report is that the top 1% of income earners have
seen their average real after-tax household income grow by 275%. middle income americans saw an increase of 40% over the same period of time. this report illuminates a sad fact. income inequality in our country is growing at a staggering pace. the report is pointing out what many of my constituents tell me as i travel around my district from cumberland to newport, from community dinners and talking to small business owners, this economy is not working for the majority of middle class families. in fact, the hardworking middle class of our country is being hollowed out. a middle class made up of people just trying to provide a good life for themselves and their families. my real fear is that if we let that happen, we'll never get it back. those here in washington need to remember that our job is to help people and to strengthen the middle class of this country. the way back to prosperity is not to ignore the problem, it's through investing in work force
retraining, infrastructure, housing, and education for tomorrow. we can't wait any longer. now is the time to act. we need to work together in a bipartisan way to get our economy and our country moving again. i have introduced legislation to make it in america block grant designed to help small to medium-sized manufacturers retool, retrofit their facilities, and train their employees so they can sustain their current work force, create jobs, and better compete in the 21st century economy. we need to develop new efficient and effective ways to fund much needed investments in our nation's crumbling infrastructure. including legislation to create a national infrastructure bank which will attract private investment in vital infrastructure projects. american families will not feel or share in economic recovery until we stabilize our distressed housing market. we not only need to mitigate our foreclosure crisis, but undertake bold actions to prevent the next wave of foreclosures from occurring. congress needs to pass critical housing legislation like the
preserving homes and communities act, introduced by senator jack reed a. representative elijah cummings, which would improve home lone -- home loan modification process. limit foreclosure fees, and respond to robosigning misconduct by forcing mortgage services to prove they had the legal right to foreclose on a property. i believe that each and every american must be guaranteed access to affordable higher education, including vocational education, regardless of their economic status. we need to protect the funding of pellgrants named for my home state senator, the late claiborne pell, one of our nation's most significant college financial aids programs. we must also guarantee our education system is preparing young people for career readiness, which i have worked on to ensure that we are offering more training options to young adults, moving them along on career pathways and strengthening public-private partnerships so that business and government are working
together to build and improve our work force. i recommend to my colleagues they all read this report if they haven't already. i also ask they join me in renewing our commitment to keep fighting for middle class families as we work to help our country every day here in the congress of the united states. it's time to get america back to work and to strengthen and support the hardworking middle class of this country, the hardworking middle class that built this country. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. jones: mr. speaker, it's a sad day when a general cannot give his honest opinion about the war in afghanistan without losing his job. last week major general fuller gave an interview which he stated the afghan government and the president of afghanistan, mr. karzai, and i want to quote the general, mr.
speaker, and these are his words, erratic and isolated from reality. that is the leader from afghanistan. he continued by saying, and i quote the general further, why don't you just poke me in the eye with a needle. you got to be kidding me. i'm sorry. we just gave you $11.6 billion and now you're telling me i don't really care? that's what our young men and women doing, losing the legs for this erratic leader of afghanistan. let me further state, in a december 8, 2010, "washington post" article while meeting with general petraeus, president karzai said, i have three main enemies. the taliban, the united states and the international community. if i had to choose sides today i'd choose the taliban. yes, these the erratic leader our young men and women are dying for. last month during a television interview president karzai stated, and i quote, if ever there was a war between
pakistan and america, afghanistan will side with the pakistanis. these are not the statements of a leader for whom the united states' service members should be giving their life and limb. on may 12 of this year, lieutenant colonel benjamin palmer and sergeant kevin balder from camp lejeune, my district, were in afghanistan to train afghan officers with one of the trainees opened fire and shot and killed lieutenant par more and sergeant baldiff as they sat down for lunch. they both were killed by an afghan trainee. and mr. speaker, these two little girls on this poster are the daughters of this sergeant, and the tragedy for these little girls is not that their
daddy gave his life for this country but the day before he was killed sergeant baldiff emailed his wife amy and he said, i don't trust them, i don't trust them, i don't trust any of them. the next day he and colonel palmer were shot dead by the people that we're spending $10 billion a month in afghanistan and we're telling the american people we got to cut your programs for your children and our senior citizens. i'm asking that president obama and congress do everything to defend the truth and encourage military leaders to be honest with the american people as to what is happening in afghanistan. and mr. speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent that i might submit the letter that i wrote to president obama regarding general fuller. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. jones: mr. speaker, as we move forward with this debt supercommittee that's going to be making recommendations, i hope that my colleagues in the republican party will join
those of us, the few of us in the republican party as well as some of the democrats and let's bring our troops home before 2014. yes, when you read in the paper we're bringing our troops home, it's 2014. how many more little girls and little boys have to go to their father or mother's funeral? why doesn't america wake up and demand that congress bring our troops home before 2014? and with that, mr. speaker, i will close as i always do from the bottom of my heart, i ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform. i ask god to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. i ask god in his loving arms to hold the families who have giving a child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq. and i ask god to please bless the house and senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of god for we are god's people. mr. speaker, last night on abc i was so touched to gabryal giffeds, one of our colleagues, make -- gabrielle gifford, one
of our colleagues, and i ask god to bless her and her husband. i ask you to give wisdom, strength and courage to the president of the united states that he will do what is right in the eyes of god. god, please continue to bless america. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, for five minutes. mr. defazio: eight days until the so-called supercommittee is to report. they're limping toward failure. although perhaps now they have found a way washington always loves to do things, let's kick the can down the road. let's pretend we did it. let's adopt some future tax measures in the next 12 months that will get us to their rather modest goal of $1.2 trillion of deficit reduction over 10 years. i tell you what, the do-nothing option is starting to look a lot better. that is something that congress
is really good doing, nothing. what happens if we do nothing? well, first you get the sequestration. there's gnashing of teeth at that. congress will have discretion within the account and find those cuts which will be relatively modest over an eight, 10-year period. but then the better thing with the do-nothing option if congress can really do nothing and continue to do nothing for the rest of this session, then all the bush tax cuts goes away and that means $4 trillion of additional revenues with a little bit of shared sacrifice. it hits the people at the top mostly. takes them back to the clinton era rates of taxes. that's without closing tax loopholes. just let the bush tax cuts expire. that would take care of 40% of the deficit problem over the
next 10 years. add in the sequestration from the failure of the committee. another one, too. thrust the one we passed last summer. up to 67%, 70% of the deficit. that's pretty much what we need to do around here. and now -- and you can do it in an honest way which is with revenues and spending reductions. that's how we balanced the budget in the 1990's. you can't do it all with just spending cuts. stop pretending that that will work. it won't work. now, there will be much gnashing of teeth, particularly on wall street, oh, congress can't get things done and we are worried and the crooks are the unindicted co-conspirators at the rating agencies, those that -- that's a.a.a.-plus investment is now concerned about the government of the united states and how it conducts itself in honesty and
dealing with the difficult problems. well, you know, maybe they should take a look at the do-nothing option too. if they are concerned about the do nothing option, this is the best. and then they will vote on the balanced budget amendment. something that was passed in 1995. if that had become law of the land, we would have had 10 years of bush tax cuts at a cost of $5 trillion of new debt. we wouldn't have the wars fought on the credit card. we'd have to vote every year because we didn't declare war and under this balanced budget amendment, if you have an overseas emergency you have to vote every year on the spending. maybe we wouldn't have spent those many hundreds of billions and trillions of dollars. and finally, the prescription drug benefit designed to subsidize the pharmaceutical industry with borrowed money and give seniors a doughnut hole, we wouldn't have had that either. now, i have liberal friends
over here saying we can't have a balanced budget amendment. if we didn't have $14 trillion of debt today, wouldn't we in a place to put america back to work and not burdening our kids with a mountain of debt? think about it. balanced budget amendment works both ways. this one's honest. it doesn't say supermajority for taxes. it doesn't say supermajority for cuts. it says you figure it out. you were elected. you'll figure it out. and do it in a way that both builds a country with a sustainable economy and gives us a financial future that isn't a huge burden to our kids. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulsen, for five minutes. mr. paulsen: i want to congratulate the wyzeta girl's soccer team for winning the 2-a
championship. this team embodies the philosophy that practice makes perfect because every day throughout the season this team would practice penalty kicks just in case a big game would depend on it. and when it came down to the championship game, when regulation came out, when overtime passed, 10 minutes extra of overtime, the state title would be decided by a penalty kick shootout. in the end it was their practice of fundamentals that really paid off when chelsea scored the game-winning goal in that shootout. so congratulations to the student athletes of wyzeta high school and the girl's soccer team sws the coaches and being great student athletes and job well done. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, for five minutes. mr. ellison: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, in a few days our congress will see the reporting
out of the work of the supercommittee. this is a big deal, and it's something that the american people, i pray, focus their attention on. it's a big deal because it is true, and i say this as a proud liberal member of this congress, that we do need to make sure that we reduce our country's long-term deficit. we need to do that because programs i care about, like head start, home heating oil for seniors, programs that are going to help develop our human capital, get crowded out when we say we just don't have enough money. we do need to make sure that we can live within the budget of this country but the question is not what we're going to cut but what we're going to spend on. that's the real question, the deeper question is, what are we going to invest in, because the fact is whether we do only stimulus and spend a lot of money in the hope we increase aggregate demand or we do what
republicans suggest which is to cut everything and just have austerity, neither one of those solutions will really put america on the track it needs to be on. the fact is we need to invest in this country because as we look around, this country, the land of opportunity, is not making the investments that it needs to make in order to be the world leader in the years to come. we need to invest in infrastructure, mr. speaker. let's start by talking about greening america. we need to retrofit old buildings. we need to invest in our smart grid. we need to invest in renewable energy, wind, solar, things that will really help power our nation and make us less dependent not only on foreign oil but oil altogether, fossil fuels. we need to reduce that dependency. we need to invest in transit, roads and bridges in my own city of minneapolis, we saw a bridge fall 65 feet into the mississippi river because it
had not been adequately maintained. as people think, oh, that's minneapolis' problem, if they think that, they're wrong. bridges all over this country is in critically bad shape and we need to invest in making sure that they are not only safe but are adequate for the future. well fitted so they can accommodate transit and other sorts of things that can move people around and not just be dependent upon cars. we need to invest in a smart grid so that our -- we can use energy efficiently and that we can power our society in an efficient and important way. but not only do we need to invest in infrastructure, we need to invest in our people. we need to invest in skills training. this should start, mr. speaker, with early childhood education. any economists who studies this will tell you, the investments you make in little kids, 0 to 6, pays off for a lifetime. and yet we don't have a
universal free kindergarten. we don't have universal early education. we have millions of children across this country whose young minds could be developed by age 3, 4 or 5 and they're not. they're languishing at home. they are being baby-sat by the television or even worse. some don't have adequate nutrition. mr. speaker, we need to invest in the earliest, youngest americans so they can have success throughout a lifetime. we need to do something immediately about the awesome debt burden that our children in college are shouldering. this has the potential as young people who are in their 20's and 30's should be buying houses, buying cars, should be saving for their retirement, they're paying back student loans. this is going to have a long-term negative affect on our economy and we need to do something about it right now. mr. speaker, there's a lot more things to talk about, but one of the things i don't want to leave off the table is we need
to also reduce our military spending. now, i'm fully in favor of supporting our veterans. i believe this is an important worthwhile investment for their health, for their education and for their welfare, but there are a number of military armaments and machines we don't need. we don't need to depend on a nuclear arsenal, in my view, mr. speaker. we need to continue to cut the -- engage in international agreement and cut the nuclear weaponry and arsenal in the world. we need to make sure that we begin to shut down some of these bases we have all across the country. as many as 174 bases. do we need this kind of military footprint? i don't think so. so, mr. speaker, let me just say that tomorrow, tomorrow we're going to have a group of leading economists at 11:00 tomorrow come together and offer their views about the proper direction for prosperity for america. tomorrow the congressional
progressive caucus at 11:00 a.m. will convene and we'll have a number of great economists whom we invite everyone to come to. i encourage everyone to attend tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry, for five minutes. . mr. terry: thank you, mr. speaker. it is the debtor that is ruined by hard times. that was said by our 19th president, ruther forward -- rutter ford b. hayes. -- rutherford b. hayes. timely, insightful comment. the united states is the debtor, $15 trillion in debt. rising at a yearly clip of $1.5 trillion. with really no institutional control to stop that.
yes, we are in hard times. 9% plus unemployment for three years straight. a report the other day that said the real unemployment rate from those that have just given up is probably closer to 15%. 16 million to 20 million americans. our savings, decreasing. mostly because of the dollars that are going towards buying bonds or selling bonds to china. now, before us this week, though, is probably one of the most important votes that this congress will take this year. and that is to pass an amendment to our constitution forcing this body to balance
its budget. now, i know it's stunning to many people that our constitution didn't have that. there were lots of fail-safes built into our constitution and i think that our founding fathers never thought that deficit spending other than at a time of war would ever occur in our country, but it has and it's become the norm. why has it become the norm in congress? simply answered, because you can. there's nothing to stop it. the easiest way, the most political way so you never have to say no is to deficit spend. my friends, that has to end. it has to end this
congressional session. now, the balanced budget amendment is a simple one. it says basically we cannot spend more than our revenues. that's what most state constitutions have. that's what the nebraska constitution has. that's what the city charter for omaha, spent eight years on the omaha city council, we had to have a balanced budget. you have to make tough decisions. i have been there when people have come and said we need new water parks or something else. we on the city council had to make a decision of raising taxes, cutting swrs else -- somewhere else, or saying no. those are your only three options. well, the time has come that congress needs the institutional barriers to spending.
and it's the balanced budget amendment. it will be the institutionalized discipline that has been lacking here for decades. the time has come to pass it. i want to leave this one general point, both disappointing and hopeful. there was an article in the "usa today," november 4, so 11, 12 days ago, where it quoted the democratic leadership saying to their own people, kill the balanced budget amendment. they want to preserve the right to deficit spend our future away at 1.-- $1.5 trillion per year. fortunately as we have heard from one democratic member,
he's not following the democratic leadership's orders here. i hope that we will get enough of our democratic friends who believe in fiscal discipline to join us. it takes 2/3 of both the house and senate to do that. it will be a close vote. on something as simple as saying that our revenues, our expenditures can't exceed our revenues, i ask for all of my colleagues' support. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey, for five minutes. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, sometimes it seems like the surest way to get in the most trouble is to tell the truth about the war in afghanistan. witness the case of major general peter fuller who
congressman walter jones just talked about. general fuller was one of our troop commanders in afghanistan until he decided to speak his mind. after president karzai made the outrageous statement that he would backpack stand in a war against the united states, major general fuller delivered a colorful, can dade, on the record reply, he said why don't you just poke me in the eye with a needle? he said of president karzai, whom he also described as erratic and isolated from reality. he added that the afghan government doesn't properly appreciate the enormous sacrifices americans are making on afghanistan's behalf. especially at a time when we have major economic challenges right here at home. and what was major general fuller's award for telling it like it is? what did he get for expressing
the frustration so many americans feel? he was thrown immediately under the bus. he was fired, relieved much his command by general john allen who admonished fuller for, and he said, general fuller inappropriately made public -- made inappropriate public comments. an interesting choice of words. inappropriate public comments. as "time" magazine pointed out, the implication there seems pretty clear. what major general fuller had the audacity to say out loud that the karzai regime is corrupt is what most people secretly believe. "time" cord -- correspondentent put it this way, it is not a good sign when what everyone is saying privately cannot be stated publicly.
in that case only the truth, the ones dying and the taxpayers, the people employing both allen and fuller, are kept willfully in the dark. unquote. the writer, christopher hiven, put it more bluntly saying, to silence fuller is to establish a stupid culture of denial in the ranks. throughout this decade, mr. speaker, this decade that we have been at war, the failure of our government to level with us has been a persistent problem. whether it's the phony weapons of mass destruction in iraq or prisoner of torture, or just the refusal to let soldiers coppins' be photographed during the bush administration, over and over again the american people have been fed a steady diet of misleading spin and outright lies. but the people who are paying for this war in blood and
treasure are much better. they are tired of propaganda. they are owed an honest accounting of what's going on, what obstacles we face, and what kind of progress we are making or not making. major general fuller had enough respect for the american people to tell them the truth. by refusing to dish out the same phony platitudes, he may have lost his job, but he maintained his integrity. if the continued rational for this war is built on a lie that no one must expose, then surely that's a sign this mission is beyond repair. the real solution is not to cover up everything that's going orably wrong in afghanistan, the solution is to recapture our integrity as a nation. end this war once and for all. not in 2014, not at some uncertain date in the future, now.
it's time now to bring our troops home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, president obama has been going around the country saying that he is taking action through executive order because, quote, we can't wait, end quote, on the congress. however he has just said that he is going to put the largest job creating project in america on ice. when it comes to creating jobs and providing additional resources for energy, the president can wait. in fact, he's putting this off until the keystone pipeline off until after the 2012 election. that is nonsense and hypocritical. this pipeline will not only
create thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, it will also help to dramatically reduce our dependence on oil from despotic middle eastern petrostates by blocking and delaying this important project, the obama administration is standing squarely in the way of economic growth and energy independence. it's time to get serious about approving this pipeline. it has broad support and its builders have demonstrated the strong willingness to do what it takes to reduce potential environmental impact. even going so far as to propose changing its root. -- route. mr. speaker, this project makes sense for our economy and for our national security and energy independence. it's long past time the obama administration stopped blocking its progress because the american people can't wait on this issue. but the president again seems
oblivious to the fact that we have a real unemployment rate of approximately 26 million people. i want to read from some information put out by the republican conference this morning. according to the bureau of labor statistics, a number of americans who are either unemployed, underemployed, or not searching because they have been discouraged by the job market has reached 26 million people. in october, nearly 14 million workers were unemployed with an additional 8.9 million working part-time because they could not find full-time work. there were also 2.5 million workers who were available for work but stopped actively searching because of the economic conditions. all told, over 16% of the u.s. work force is now unemployed or underemployed and yet the
president won't make a decision on the keystone pipeline that would create tens of thousands of jobs. republicans, though, have taken action. we have over 20 bills sitting in the senate introduced by republicans but passed by a bipartisan majority, house majority, and these will all create jobs in this country. mr. speaker, i urge the american people to go to jobs. gop.gov and click on track legislation for them to see the evidence of what republicans are promoting in the house of representatives that is being stopped in the senate. yes, there is a do-nothing part of the congress, mr. obama, but that is in the senate which is
controlled by the democrats. so, again, i want to urge americans to go to jobs.gop.gov and click on track legislation. republicans have the will to help create jobs in this country through empowering small businesses and reducing government barriers to job creation. fixing the tax code. boosting competitiveness, encouraging entrepreneurship, maximizing american energy production, and paying down america's unsustainable debt burden and start living within our means. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. members are reminded to make remarks to the chair. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, for five minutes. mr. connolly: mr. speaker, this past friday was veterans day,
the day we setaside to honor and remember the service of our nation's veterans. . i know many members attended veterans' events throughout our districts. although veterans day originally honored those who fought in world war i, in 1954 it was expanded to include the remembrance of all veterans. and indeed every veteran deserves such honor. they all chose to risk their lives to protect us. they bravely answered the call of their nation and sadly too many died in defense of our freedom. of course, such noble service would not be possible without the unwavering support of their families. america is safer because of our veterans, from those who served overseas to those stationed here at home. we properly award medals for individual heroic action but it is a their daily dedication, courage and valor that makes each and every one of them an american hero. there are more than 21 million
veterans in the united states, 73,000 in my district, the 11th district of virginia alone. we celebrate their commitment and their sacrifice from the revolutionary war to the iraq war. but our remembrance must not end simply by honoring their past service. upon leaving the military, many veterans face significant challenges here at home. although more must be done, the issue of providing care to our wounded veterans has been well documented. i was pleased to join my colleagues to support the largest single increase of the veterans administration in history. however, there is a growing crisis among our veterans. and i want to call attention to the troubling unemployment rate for post-9/11 veterans which at 12.4% which is 1/3 higher than our national average. as troops in iraq and afghanistan begin coming home it will only get worse. these are men and women who risk their lives to protect our
families. congress repeatedly comes together in a bipartisan fashion to support our troops overseas. but ensuring that our troops have the equipment and personnel they need to accomplish their mission has been a priority but it can't be the only priority. it's long past time that we show the same commitment to our veterans when they come home. more than one in nine veterans that left the service in the past decade is currently unemployed. jobs has to be our top priority. we have to move beyond live service. if we really want to help our veterans, hire them. the president's jobs package shows the overarching need to create jobs. our economy cannot fully recover while so many americans are out of work. the jobs incentives cuts taxes on every working american in order to further spur economic demand. most importantly, the american jobs act provides additional incentives to companies when
they hire veterans. the returning heroes tax credits puts businesses that hire unemployed veterans, the wounded warriors tax credits offers greater tax cuts to businesses who will hire unemployed veterans with service-connected disabilities. these men and women are not looking for a handout. they are looking for an opportunity. and the senate have already enacted a number of these proposals. i call on my colleagues to recognize and honoring the sacrifices of our veterans doesn't stop when they leave the service. they need jobs and they need them now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from mississippi, mr. nunnelee, for five minutes. mr. nunnelee: thank you, mr. speaker. the rights of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be enfringed.
the second amendment is one of the cornerstones of our liberty. that's why this morning i rise in support of h.r. 822, the national right to carry reciprocity act. in mississippi approximately 45,000 people have concealed carry permits. now, those individuals in mississippi that have a driver's license issued by our state can drive into alabama or tennessee or for that matter they can drive into montana or maine and their driver's license is recognized as being valid. this legislation will be the same for people with their concealed carry permits. new rules or regulations won't
be needed to implement h.r. 822. it doesn't override any state or local law. a concealed carry permit holder would still be required to comply with the laws of the state he or she is in. i support the national right to carry reciprocity act because it expands freedom for law-abiding gun owners while respecting each state's right to set its own laws. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker. before i talk about my topic of protecting our children, i want to acknowledge first of all the
coming thanksgiving and the many people who are impoverished in this nation. we need to pay attention to and particularly our children, which is the largest percentage of those impoverished are children in the united states. for that reason i think it is important that as we begin this discussion on the supercommittee and its responsibility that we look at the responsibility to the american people. and if we cannot fairly bring in revenue and balance the cuts on the most vulnerable, we should go to regular order. let me also welcome our troops that will be coming home and i will be initiating in houston an idea that every single school will have a welcome home troops all over the community and not one tree will be left undressed, if you will, to make sure that none of our soldiers walk down any block in a lonely way and not know that they are welcomed and loved. and thirdly, i'd like to say that as they are coming home,
as we are preparing to use the many talents that they have learned, particularly those who understand homeland security, putting them to work for the homeland security department. i also want to create jobs. and one of my constituents is exxonmobil who has struck a contract with the courage -- contract with oil in iraq. the country we shed blood for, no matter you are green energy or for or against fossil fuels, it is about jobs and about work here in the united states. the audacity of the iraqi government to suggest they want to intrude on that contract and to have a say on that contract, well, when lives are lost, american lives are lost, they didn't have too much of a say. americans were willing to stand up and be counted, and i'd hope the iraqis would allow a fair contract to go forward. it seems that every time americans involved in helping the iraqi people through the iraqi government there's always a negative response. some of us are a little tired
of that. mr. speaker, i rise particularly today to talk about our children. as the co-chair and founder of the congressional children's caucus, i noted already the disaster that children are experiencing. in my home state, food stamps hit a record in texas. we know that governor perry is running for president, but in his own home state we are facing a crisis with the number of people on food stamps. we're also facing a crisis because the policy agency for education, the texas education agency, is deciding to go throughout the state of texas and to save money on education by closing school districts, small school districts in particular. there are too fearful of closing the big ones, and i represent many of them and i love them all and bring money to them and encourage them to educate their children, but there's something about school districts that are too big to fail. but an independent school
district where hundreds of community leaders and children and parents and teachers came out on sunday to stand up against a so-called revocation notice that would close down this school district that has all the need to survive, 7,500 students, a high school that they are putting together and repairing and getting children to learn, 1,200 students in this high school, middle schools, elementary schools, a preschool that is renowned and respected by all, but the t.e.a. wants to cut the budget and save its own neck by cutting small school districts. and so my plea to my governor, governor perry, join with me and the many citizens that you represent and stand against the t.e.a. to close a majority of minority school districts, the last remaining, majority minority school district with great history in the north
independent school community, tacking themselves to ensure that their children have more resources and are joined with the houston community college system so that their children are getting college preparatory credit, they want to live, they want to survive. don't belt tighten and save your neck and your jobs on the backs of our children. don't disregard and discriminate against small school districts which are all over america on behalf of large school districts, and governor perry, i think we can work together as we worked together against the confed rate flag license plates, we can work together on this matter. let me close by focusing on an issue that has taken this country by storm, and as i read the indictment, i don't want to point out one name versus another. the alleged perpetrator in this penn state fiasco, but i will say this is a disgrace. i will be introducing legislation to have zero
tolerance for sexual abuse of children and to stop any federal funds going to anyone, any entity, any state that has a situation where children are sexually abused. mr. speaker, it's a disgrace and the federal government must stand up against it. i for one am going to do so. enough is enough. we have to protect our children. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. members are reminded once again to address dress their remarks to the chair. the -- address their remarks to the chair. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nevada, dr. heck, for five minutes. mr. heck: thank you, mr. chairman. you know, washington seems to have forgotten that government money isn't free, and it is the american taxpayers who support its spending habits. simply put, the federal government doesn't respect your hard work, your discipline, your sacrifice or your unwavering commitment to self-reliance. we must change that.
the time to force accountability, leadership and respect is long past due, and the balanced budget amendment to the constitution may be the only solution. a balanced budget amendment would force washington politicians to exercise necessary fiscal restraint and better judgment when debating where and how to spend american taxpayer dollars. the days of borrowing money and passing a debt onto our families and small businesses would be over and washington would be forced to live within its means, just like you and i. the government should be doing a few things very well instead of a lot of things poorly. it should help give people peace of mind but the appetite for spending does exactly the opposite. our small businesses face uncertainty created by a government that funds its misadventures with borrowed money and higher taxes. washington's spending habit will rot our economic
foundation to the core and destroy the american dream as we know it. the government can't spend its way out of recession, but it can create an environment of confidence and predictability that america's job creators, work force and families are seeking. president barack obama has said that the nation needs a balanced approach when addressing washington's unsustainable spending. but one only has to ask, what is more balanced than a balanced budget amendment? 49 of 50 states have balanced budget requirements and a cnn poll shows that 79% of the american public supports a balanced budget amendment. this is not a partisan fight. this is a commonsense solution to an undeniable problem that is plaguing our economy. still, there are those who oppose a balanced budget amendment because they believe washington ought to be able to hold the line on spending.
i wish we could trust that to happen, but over the last decade, both parties have spent taxpayer dollars at unsustainable levels. it is time to change direction and move forward with an approach that will rescue our economy with real and lasting results. with america's total debt exceeding the gross domestic product for the first time since world war ii, we cannot afford to make this issue about politics. it must be about saving our economy and securing the future of our country for our children and our grandchildren. the debate in washington comes down to this, should we hold the government accountable or not? we must seize this opportunity to change washington's culture of deficit spending. we must pass a balanced budget amendment. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. speier, for five minutes.
ms. speier: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise again today to draw attention to the epidemic in our military of rape and sexual assault. 19,000 women and men each year are raped or sexually assaulted in the military. shockingly almost 1/3 of female veterans of all generations say they have been sexually assaulted or raped while in the military. and more than 70% say they experienced sexual harassment while serving. in 2008, the department of veterans affairs reported a total of 48,106 female veterans and 43,693 male veterans screen positively for military sexual trauma. the prosecution rate of sexual assault is alarmingly low. only 8% of sexual assailants were referred to court-martials
or military court compared with 40% of similar offenders in the civilian system. this travesty is not being addressed and i will continue to speak out on this floor until it does. survivors could email me at stopmilitaryrape at mail.house.gov if they would like to speak out. today i would like to tell the story of one of the 8% that were prosecuted. the story of colonel michael robertson who commanded fort bliss' 31st combat support hospital at camp dwire, a military base and airfield in the helmund river valley in afghanistan. last week colonel robertson was convicted by a military judge of 14 charges, including having pornography on his government computer, sexually harassing three women, and assaulting five women. eight women that served under his command testified at great cost to their careers and
privacy. colonel robertson routinely touched them without permission. on their breast, thies -- thighs, and buttocks and encouraged them to look at pornography on his computer. some testified the harassment occurred daily. sadly the military careers of these eight women who bravely did the right thing are almost assuredly destroyed. a major who filed a claim against robertson said, quote, i don't know if my career was in jeopardy for doing the right thing. who in the corps who supported you is going to trust you in the future, unquote. despite repeated warnings colonel robertson also emailed pornography to friends and people subordinates. his command style split the staff and created a toxic environment. what makes the defense's answer to all these actions?
that all of these jokes and touching were attempts to boost morale. how much more outrageous must the excuse become before we do something about it? what is the punishment for someone in the military for harassing support gnats? is he sent to prison for being a predor? is he stripped of his standing in the military? oh, no. colonel robertson was ordered to pay a $30,000 fine over three months and spent three months in prison. colonel robertson will retire from the army when he finishes his sentence. his conviction won't affect his army retirement. or his federal health insurance. and he will not be required to register as a sex offender. it doesn't take a military expert or psychologist to figure out that sexual assault and harassment hurts not only
the individual victims but undermines unit cohesion, morale, and overall effectiveness. the absolute failure to address this behavior is hurting our military. like colonel robertson, the majority of assailants are older an higher rank than their victims. they abuse not only their authority but also the trust of those they are responsible for protecting. the current military structure serves as a safe haven for sexual predators. they either are never brought to justice at all or they receive a sentence like colonel robertson that doesn't come close to match their crime. that's why this week i'll be introducing a bill that would fundamentally change how sexual assaults are handled in the military. my bill will take the prosecution, the reporting, the oversight, the investigation, and the victim care of sexual assaults out of the hands of the normal chain of demand and place the jurisdiction in the hands of an impartial office
staffed by experts, both military and civilian. i have become painfully aware if d.o.d. continues to address this issue at its current pace, the epidemic of military assault will never end. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, for five minutes. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i appreciate the time. i am keeping to the floor today with joy in my heart. joy in my heart. and candidly i'd like to come to the floor that way every day, mr. speaker, but i don't always get to. but today i'm hear because we are voting on a balanced budget amendment this week. the first time in 15 years. now, i'm a freshman in this house, mr. speaker. i have been watching the process for a long time. but i have only had a voting card for 10 months. and i came to this congress to do the big things. to do the big things, not to argue about the petty things. i tell folks, mr. speaker, that very rarely are we arguing
about the petty things. there is a constituent focus to absolutely everything we do, but the big things. the big things that change the direction of this country that ensure that this experiment in democracy that our republic survive for another generation. $15 trillion in debt, mr. speaker. do you remember, mr. speaker, you don't have the gray hair that i do, but back in the days of ronald reagan we were running $200 billion and $300 billion annual debts. and folks thought the world might be coming to an end. put the soviet union out of business, but it was big money. who'd have thought we would have come to the day where we are running a $1.4, $1.5, 1 $6 trillion deficits every year? mr. speaker, as you know in the people's house, where the people's will gets done, we have choices here. in my district, for example, folks want to tax less and spend less.
i hear it every day. rob, tax less and spend less. i'm sure i've got some colleagues on the other side of the aisle whose constituencies want to tax more and spend more. that is a legitimate debate for us to have in this house. we should have it. but we ought to be able to agree that spending money we don't have harms the future of this republic. spending money we don't have mortgages the future of everyone under the age of 20. and threatens the security of everyone over the age of 60. a balanced budget amendment is one ever those things that we can agree on. one of those issues it's not republican, not democrat, not conservative, it's not liberal. it is american. thomas jefferson said if he could have added but one amendment to the constitution, it would have been one to abolish the power of the government to borrow, because with that one amendment alone he would be certain of the security of these united states. mr. speaker, that chance is here with us this week. for the first time in 15 years.
i confess when i came to congress, mr. speaker, i didn't expect to have to vote for a balanced budget. i thought we would be able to do the right thing and balance the budget on our own. i thought that's the job of the congress. do what you're supposed to do, do what's right, why do you need an amendment to the constitution to do what's right? mr. speaker, it turned out to be a bigger job than i an dissipated. the disagreements turned out to be more fundamental than i anticipated and the desire of constituents back home turned out to be more complicated than i anticipated. this is our opportunity. i have a copy of the constitution that we have here. it's right behind my job creators cards. i keep it behind the job creators cards because balancing the budget in this country has everything to do to preserving economic opportunity in this country and everything to do with growing our economy in the generation to come. my copy of the constitution has a little space right there
after amendment number 27, a space right here, mr. speaker, where we could put amendment number 28 today and ensure that our republic survives for another generation. you see what's going on in europe. there but for the grace of god go we. this is our opportunity. it is not a divisive issue. it is an issue of unity. it is not an issue that divides north and south, east or west, republican or democrat, it is an issue that unites america. it was a huge bipartisan vote in 1995 and it will be a huge bipartisan vote today, mr. speaker. i hope your telephone lines, mr. speaker, are ringing as mine are. and if not, why not, mr. speaker? why hasn't everyone in our district called to say, please support the balanced budget amendment. why hasn't everyone in my district call to say, mr. speaker, please support the balanced budget amendment, raise taxes, lower taxes, cut spending, raise spending, that's an american decision we get to decide but borrowing and putting off those tough
we're happy to welcome the distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee and please come forward, chairman smith. we are anticipating that bobby scott will be joining you at the table, so let me say, first of all, welcome back to the members of the rules committee. i hope everyone had a productive week. we have, as has ever won, is aware of a very, very busy meeting. we are planning to me almost every day. it will feel like it. we will meet today, tomorrow, and wednesday. we will have a very bowl schedule going into friday. having said that, let me extend a welcome to my good friend, mr. smith. without objection, and a prepared statement you have will appear in the record in its entirety. >> i will give a brief statement
and will be happy answer questions. i appreciate the opportunity to testify for the national right for reciprocity act. it was introduced by mr. stearns of florida. it is co-sponsored by 245 members of both sides of the aisle. this allows valid state issued permits to carry a concealed handgun in in any other states that allows a concealed carry. this does not preempt a state's right to set requirements. it allows states that currently use these to verify other state's. the person visiting another state must comply with all laws
and regulations surrounding the use of a concealed and carried. it reduces violent crime rates by deterring would-be assailants and allowing law- abiding citizens to defend themselves. in 1997 study regarding the concealed carry weapons, when state concealed carry a handgun laws, murder fell by more than 7% and the race and abrogated assault bell by similar percentages. the study has been replicated and confirmed by other scholars. they found this underestimated the effect of a concealed carry laws on violent crime rates. this simply allows americans to travel to take their second amendment rights with them. congress has previously pass laws to prevent active-duty and retired law-enforcement officers to carry.
this extends the same ability to all law abiding citizens. this was considered and approved by the full committee on october 25th. our request an appropriate role allowing for expeditious consideration. >> thank you very much, chairman smith. i am impressed with one point that you made. there is nothing that imposes on a state that does not have a concealed carry measure or any kind of responsibility. air-conditioned -- eight recognition of states right is very important. >> this recognizes states' rights in two very serious ways. if a state has voted not to allow individuals to have a concealed carry permit, an individual cannot carry weapons, guns, firearms into that state. the only state in that category is illinois.
another way it respects states' rights is because a state, for example, does not allow a concealed carry permit to go into a public building, a bar, a sporting event with a firearm, and individual coming from out of state cannot do any of those things either, so what respect local and state laws with respect to concealed carry. >> thank you very much. congressman sessions? >> thank you for appearing before the rules committee today. i'm very excited about this bill which has been talked about to die have been in congress. i have been a co-sponsor of this effort and strongly supported. the facts that you presented evidently from an author who speaks about our ability to protect ourselves as, i think, a
right that we have but with a profound effect on crime deterrents. do you have any more information about that? in texas, we found at the time we did this, literally crime went down. >> crime typically goes down 6%- 7% when every state has implemented a concealed carry permit. u.s. but there was any additional information and there have been 18 studies that have showed the crime rate has dropped precipitously when a concealed carry permit was allowed in that state. zero studies have indicated the crime rates have increased. >> this is, once again, an indication to me how one part being able to carry forth your constitutional rights, especially the second amendment, wherever you go.
the one question i messed was a face state does not have, or washington, d.c., does not have this ability, how does this bill treated? >> it a state or d.c., which does not allow an individual to have a concealed-carry, then the reciprocity would not hold in those cases. the state or district rights would not allow someone to cross their borders with a concealed carry. >> to me, that shows a great respect for others, which i think this bill is about, respecting everyone's constitutional rights but the legislative intent were those bodies have spoken. i am in full support. >> mr. scott, we have already begun the questioning, if you would like to offer some comments. >> i just ask for my statement to be placed in the record.
>> if you have an out of state permit, you have to comply to the regulations in that state even though you are not entitled to a permit in in that state? >> this is a discussion you and i just had. there is one state i am aware of it in addition to the district where there have been an affirmative decision is made not to issue concealed carry permits. under this bill, you would not be allowed to take firearms into the jurisdictions. >> if you live in one state and are not qualified to get a concealed weapons permit in your state and want to go to another state to get to a concealed weapons permit, you can use that permit anywhere except your home state? you can run around the country even though you are not entitled to get a permit and even though the state you go to would not
let you get a concealed gun permit because of convictions or another reason? >> may respond? we have a situation in america where there are 49 states that allow concealed-carry permits. this bill allows a national or federal standard to apply to all of those states. but repeat what i have just said and get more to the subject at hand, if a state says, for example come into your own residence to have a concealed and carry permit the went to a public plazce, a school or publc building, you still are not allowed. there will be instances where there is a slight difference between states. if a state has a concealed-carry coming year will be able to go into that state regardless. the idea is to have some
consistency with a national standard and respect state rights and local jurisdictions may decide you cannot take a firearm on to a school premises. >> let's be clear. if you're not entitled to get a weapon because of convictions, the state has decided people with certain convictions cannot have a permit, you can go to another state, get a permit, and that concealed weapons permit would have to be accepted anywhere even though few are in virginia, go to you talk among new orleans, north carolina, and you can now carry a concealed weapon when you were not able to get a concealed weapons permit in virginia or north carolina because of certain convictions or other kinds of problems. you're going to have one state to be concealed weapons permit state.
we're not sure if whether you need to shop in person. you can just ordered over the internet to pay enough of a fee. >> let me address with the gentleman from virginia has that. anyone convicted of a felony is not eligible to get a concealed carry permit nor are they eligible but they have been convicted of certain misdemeanors like domestic violence. there will be some states, new york being the example, where sex crimes may be considered by that state to be a misdemeanor and not a felony as they are in other states. that is not a problem with this bill but those states. they decide those crimes are sufficiently severe and should be felonies, like they are in other states come and the individual would not be eligible. that is a problem with the states that are not, and in my judgment, taking these crimes seriously enough. >> some states also require a minimum degree of training so
you are carrying a gun and understand. the state ought to decide if you have certain convictions and should not be able to carry a concealed weapon. they say you should have certain training. and you have people coming into your state on trained with convictions that prohibit them from getting a concealed weapons permit in that state which is by the international association of chiefs of police in major cities, the police foundation, the national organization of black law enforcement executives, they all oppose legislation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in response to what you just said, mr. scott, we did some studies in our office to see
what was left. the number of people who were killed during church services or any kind of religious services were really quite appalling to us. the number of law-enforcement people killed in the line of duty has been increasing exponentially. i am not happy to see this bill here. it will not do anything about creating jobs anywhere. let me just speak about my own state here for just a minute. people convicted of sex crimes from carrying guns, this bill will override that? new york prohibits people convicted of sexual crimes from carrying weapons. does this bill override that? >> it would depend on the level of the sex crime. if it is a felony, the law would not allow them to have a concealed carry. >> you can get the concealed carry permit in your own state,
you can bring it into new york in the permit is good notwithstanding the fact that new york had a different idea. >> you live in new york and go to utah and get a concealed weapons permit. >> you cannot come back to your home state, but you can go to any other state with that permit. >> new york denies fire arm permits for those with domestic violence. 14 states allow good moral character. this will allow domestic violence abuser to cross state lines? >> there is a domestic violence misdemeanor, is prohibited it. as well as with a number of felonies. i want to go back to the point made. i do not consider it the fault
of the legislation that states have decided that some crimes are not serious enough to be considered felonies. if you think some sex crime can only be determined to be a misdemeanor, and in many cases that is the case in new york. i cannot explain why or how come but all they have to do is say those crimes are of a more serious nature. >> "the new york times" had an article this morning about the number of felons throughout the country. many of them have mental problems and serious other things and about how easy it was for them to regain their gun permits. i recommend everyone look at that. what bothers me most, of and -- can we put that in the record? >> without objection. >> thank you. we have a a colleague that was
grievously wounded, shot in the head. a nine year-old girl who only wanted to go see her congress woman was killed. federal employees were killed. >> where these individuals killed -- >> gabrielle giffords. >> they were not injured or killed or maimed -- that individual did not have a concealed carry permit, i believe. >> they are irrelevant to this bill. >> dead it is dead, mr. smith. >> that has nothing to do with it. >> do you want everybody to have a gun? >> do not put words in my mouth. i do not want everyone to have a gun. that to be clear from my opening statement. >> but everyone has one.
>> not everybody has a gun. >> the second amendment rights -- >> we're talking about a concealed carry point. >> i want to make this point because it is important to me. frankly, i have never agreed. i believe that a well regulated militia in the revolutionary war consisted of people who fought from the prairies who brought their guns and shot. i believe that is what the second amendment is. what amendment protect that little girl, that judge, and gabrielle giffords and her staff? what they supposed to do? it is the rights of a gun toters are more important than their rights -- [cross talk] are we supposed to wear bullet- proof card?
what are the rest of was supposed to do? this is all a part of the same package. >> you are entitled to your opinion is all i can tell you. >> it is all the same package. i am with law-enforcement on this. >> you may want to prohibit all guns. that is sort of the natural result of the kind of policy were describing. i cannot agree with that, but that is not why we're here. that is your opinion. >> frankly, i do not think it does us any good to have so many citizens killed. i do not like people being killed. >> if you want to prohibit all guns, that is up to you. that goes beyond this bill. >> anybody who would never allow people carrying concealed weapons and to a bar -- >> they do not have to. if a jurisdiction prohibits that, a state, a city, the
concealed carry permit gun cannot go into the public place. >> i still would like to know if we need to protect those of us to about our daily business with some possibility of getting home from work or we can go see our congressperson without fear of being shot to death. -- maybe we ought to work on something like this. >> if you want to reduce violent crime, then you would support a wider use conceal-carry because demonstrably it reduces crime. >> i do not see that. >> i will give you 18 studies that show it reduces crime. not a single study shows that it increases crime. >> i will not take that on any kind of faith. that does not coincide with anything i have seen anywhere. thank you, mr. chair.
>> thank you tom mr. chairman. i want to thank chairman smith for his work on this bill and for bringing this to the house for its vote. we all took a vote to uphold the constitution, and in my opinion the right to carry is an integral part of our upholding the constitution and, frankly, i do not think the founders intended for conceal-carry to be part of that, as it has been in the past. i am very happy to see this bill come forward. i think if there were a true definition of the term "strop dog" in the dictionary, it is this last soliloquy we just heard which brought up all kinds of arguments against this
legislation, as the chairman has said, which has nothing to do with this piece of legislation. i agree with the chairman that more widespread use of weapons by the law-abiding public would do a great deal to bring down the crime rates in this country. i appreciate very much your bringing this bill to us and i look forward to its passage by a wide margin in a bipartisan fashion. >> thank you, very much. on the issue of states' rights, mike understanding is that if you get a permit to carry a concealed weapon in one state,
that would allow you to carry a concealed weapon in another state that may have a higher standard of what is required. am i correct? some states require more training. that is a state's rights issue. to get permits to begin with. when you say that it does not do anything, it does. it says that some states that say they want a higher standard in place before they give someone a permit, it gets over written by someone who gets a permit in a state with very little standards. domestic violence laws in 38 states prohibit those convicted of certain offenses such as impersonating a police officer and stocking from owning a gun, but this bill would override it. -- impersonating a police
officer and stalking. we have all these debates about getting the federal government off of people's backs, but here we are making a very specific caveat saying, "except when it comes to this." i am just curious. >> the common standard are the states that at least recognize the right for a permit. there may be different backwardations between states though. >> that is my point. who gets the permit? >> they recognize the right and we did >> but in a state that would require someone to get a certain amount of training before they get it, they may not necessarily recognized that from state to state, but once he gets it they can take it all over the place? >> to some extent, that is true.
you can go into a state that does not have the exact requirements -- >> but that is a big deal. that is a big deal, about what it takes to get a permit. >> the idea here is reciprocity. let me give you another example. different states have different requirements for cars licenses and other states recognize other states' drivers licenses even though there may be different distinctions about what it takes. that idea of reciprocity exists in any number. >> will the gentleman yield for a moment? i wonder if that well articulated case also applies to marriage definitions between the states. >> i suspect it does apply to marriage licenses. >> including those states that allows same-sex marriage certificates? >> not always.
i think i like my example better. >> with all matters of civil licensing whether it is the permission to drive, marriage, concealed weapon, i think there is an approach that you indicated with respect to reciprocity. >> there is a lot more in common between a concealed-carry and a driver license then there is licensing to deal with social behavior, to tell you the truth. >> would you care to further elaborate? this is a legal recognition of a particular item that is visible function and it is a more state sovereignty issue on those. again, for the convenience of our populace, the argument would be why not have the reciprocity with regards to marriage, as well. >> i have a hunch will be making that argument, will it not? >> there is a difference between a driver license and the ability to carry a concealed weapon.
can you comment on why all these police chiefs and organizations are against this bill? >> of the associations are not what you would call mainstream law enforcement associations. i would have to know more about the list and take a look at. >> the international association of chiefs of police of major cities which is comprised of police chiefs of 56 major u.s. cities. i have to say that i think we're talking -- >> a french organization? >> who carries a concealed weapon within your jurisdiction is more a question of public safety than who is married into is not. that is not a question of public safety. when you're talking about states' rights, one of the reasons the police officers have a problem with this is that if you find someone with a
concealed weapon and the pulp paper out of their pocket that purports to be and out of state concealed weapons permit, they did not know what they're looking at. you have some sheriff in a county in massachusetts presented with some document that says it is from new mexico. is it valid? most of the states do not have 24-hour verification, so you cannot even call anybody. one reason virginia does not have reciprocity is that they do not have 24-hour verifications' to you can call some and ascertain whether or not this guy has a permit or not. because they do not have the 24- hour verification, virginia does not have reciprocity because they want the ability to verify. that is why they have a problem with this legislation. >> will the gentleman yield? let me respond. when you have to show a concealed carry permit alone,
that may raise some questions, but a point of fact that you have to showing government idea as well. furthermore, you can check to make sure that there is an internet system that allows law enforcement agencies and other state agencies to check the validity of out of steeped conceal permits. even if you were in a state that did not have the system, you could still access it from out of states and there is a way to make sure the person with the permanent is who they say they are. i have just been told that is available 24 hours. i hope that is accurate. >> that is not what we were told during the hearing. >> do you have anything additional tax >> dimensions states rights. this is a big deal, whether or
not people of certain background of to be carrying concealed weapons. that is a question the state makes and the purpose of this bill is to override the lowest common denominator. >> we just came back from a recess and we all spent the week in our districts. i am sure you spent the week in your district. i did not run into a single person that talked about this issue. i ran into people who do not have jobs, people concerned they could send their kids to college, people losing their homes, people with struggling small businesses trying to make a living. what are you doing here in congress? and we are doing this. i have to be honest with you. in the scheme of things and with this economic crisis, i respect the work on the judiciary committee, but we should be doing jobs every single day of the week and i find it very difficult to look at this as a
jobs bill. i do not know what we're thinking here, but this is not what i heard back from. i'm willing to heard it is not what you heard back to me there. >> there may be a difference between massachusetts and texas, because when i brought it up there were very interested. >> that it would also be interested in jobs, too, because we have an economic crisis where try to dig ourselves out of. with respect, this is not an answer to our economic problems in this country and we should be dealing with jobs bills instead of this. i yield back my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is really heartening for me to see this fealty towards federalism that my friends on the democratic side have finally found. i assume because of this thing
that is so unique, that is why we have the extra light here. we will now be dealing with states' rights issues on a whole group of other issues that have been ignored in the past. i hope that you hold on to the constitutional concept of federalism. i know deep down inside you understand why the founding fathers wrote that concept. the without stating specifically into the document itself. mr. smith, can i ask a question? i do not know of the phrase the lot number amendment is something with which you're familiar -- lautenberg amendment? it was passed some time in the 1980's. it would deny -- >> as it has been discussed recently, it has to do with refugees coming from the soviet union, so i do not think that
would be related. >> this was well before i came here. it dealt with the ability of someone to have a concealed permit had been convicted or accused of a domestic violence offense even if they happened to be a member of the law enforcement community. at the time, the law-enforcement community was violently opposed but congress passed it anyway. does this bill have an impact on that or would it leave it as it is? >> sandridge and does not have an impact. >> so the ability to dictate what would and would not be the gun policy, which would not fit with federalism, but was accepted by a lot of people who are still here on the other side, that has no impact? does this have any impact on open carry laws? >> not my knowledge. >> of those stay the same.
if i work from the wild west, as people assume, and it did have a concealed weapons permit and i wanted to drive back here to this civilization we call washington, d.c., what would i have to do with that permit as a drover from state to state to state it is the bill were not -- >> he would not be able to take that firearm from state to state. >> and i would have to either put it in the trunk or continue to carry then take it back out the next state i got to? >> under current law, because d.c. has chosen not to allow concealed carry coming you would ultimately not be allowed to drive into the district of columbia under those conditions. >> since it would be difficult for the average gun owner who has a concealed permit owner to know the intricacies of every state, would it not be a significant disadvantage for them to be have been -- to be
able to do that. it would be in a bandage for them to realize it would not have to be a practice of stopping, hiding it, stopping and loading and come on -- and so on? >> it will the gentleman yield? that would also be the case under the legislation. >> as you go from state to state, as the gentleman has indicated, you still have to obey the laws of that state. once you have the permit, whether you can go into a bar, schools, colleges, but he would have to abide by the state laws, so you would have to know all of those state laws is to go from state to state any way. >> that is a good point.
the first step is at least a first step in the right direction. mr. smith, if i could ask a few others? where was he a part of his -- it was he a part of the interviews? >> just his studies. >> the more rational approach to be able to defend yourself with the guns have a better record as far as the overall crime rate concerns that is based on academic work? >> that is correct. if i could go into more detail, based on confirmation from the fbi report, state that when they allow concealed-carry have 20% lower violent crime rates, 12% lower aggravated assault rates as compared to the rest of the country. >> even though that looks like
it was a setup question, i did not know if you know i have dealt with him. i have read his studies in the past which is why was a legitimate question of inquiry as to his process. we've spoken here in some detail about comparing driver's licenses, which you do have the ability to go with a concealed carry permit license. is there not at least some distinction between those two is a driver's license and a privilege not covered by any part of the constitution as a constitutional right visa be a concealed carry permit which does deal with-- vis-a-vis which is not a privilege but a constitutional right? >> i know where you are headed. the second amendment right to carry and use a firearm certainly would be even stronger
than, say, a driver's license which is not necessarily constitutionally protected. >> in trying to balance the constitutional right of the second amendment, it is a balancing act. i feel somewhat frustrated that people all of a sudden want to use the states' rights now. a constitutional right should take precedence in no shape, way, size, or form on any other types of licenses. it is frustrating to me that congress, in years past, has violated states' rights as well as the constitutional right for the second amendment in things like the lautenberg amendment which was opposed by law enforcement. we have a history of doing things improper the in the past which i hope we can change going forward. we found some really unique
philosophy is that i heard recently in this meeting dealing with the militia of that certainly violates what james madison found to be a militia and the purpose of a militia and as well as what james madison wrote when it deals to whether people should have a gun and how to use it. i have heard some unique concepts here about what we should do to individuals to prohibit a pre described incident which may or may not happen in the future. i realize we have had some unique concepts between the difference of a privilege between a constitutional right of somebody in a state. since i do not have a concealed weapon permit, and will not have to have the problem of driving, unloading, loading my car with every state boundary i hit. >> that is correct. the fundamental point that there's a strong constitutional right to bear arms is something that should be respected and
even guarded. >> i yield back. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i would like to begin by pointing to other organizations, like mr. scott did, other organizations that are supportive of this measure not being passed. if he does not know about this, perhaps it does not about the american bar association and the association of prosecuting attorneys. not public defenders but prosecuting attorneys. >> the american bar association is a liberal organization, so their opposition is not a surprise. quickset find that interesting, as i have served on several committees for that group and did not bind all those liberals
you were talking about. i hear you. i want to make it very clear with this point that i imagine, lifting from an article today, -- it was in october that has the title, "have glock, will travel." imagine how apoplectic they would be that if washington forced those states to yield to these values the way that this bill would compel new york, massachusetts, and connecticut to honor more permissive gun control regulations from the south and west. as it happens, these three northeastern states all perform marriage quality, same-sex marriage, which more
conservative states do not have to recognize. i guess i will be joining him tomorrow in that argument. let me smack down most immediately on the notion that there's a new found attitude in the democrats' offerings having to do with state rights. there are many of us that would not be here if all of the state rights had been observed in the way they were put forward. the problem that you have here, in my judgment, is that states have put forward a considerable amount of time trying to determine just what is best for their citizenry with respect to this. last night, i was at an event in
fort lauderdale. the sheriff of but one county, and a member of this committee is a former sheriff, the sheriff is a republican and a friend of mine. when i pointed out to him that we were getting ready to carry this measure, the exchange that we had in addition to his being astounded that we would be doing this, the exchange that we had would be why would anyone want to become a police officer with this kind of confusion if this were to be granted by the senate and the president? i want to ask you, mr. smith. which states do not have the
>> that is something we will have to work up even if it takes some time. >> i just got off an airplane with 240 people. i am sure many members did as well. what happens when 40 of them show up at the airport and i doubt at any given time at any one year plan that this would be the case, but let me tell you how this may work. let's say someone was leaving a gun show that just took place in marietta, ga., and was on their way to a gun show in south carolina with their guns. 40 other people are leaving that want to go sell guns as well. how does that work at the airport?
but to the people do? do you have to check that in at the counter? >> this does nothing affirmatively to allow someone to carry a firearm on an airplane. >> i can drive from new york to utah, but i would not have one because new york laws are restricted, but i could go from new york to get me a gun then drive back with a gun and new york would have to observe my carrying a concealed weapon? >> not if it is your home. >> ok, so i do not go back to my home. i go to utah and get me a gun permit, i can carry it anywhere i want to accept that state? ec, that is crazy. that is why in this particular
instance we are getting ready to get way off track with something. this does not appear to be particularly relevant, but i have in my hand the gun shows established in the usa in the month of november alone. at each of these gun shows, i see the big signs all the time, and i have been thinking about how to break that up. the first day we see a sign saying "african-american gun show in harlem, liberty city, miami" then there will not be any more gun shows and we will stop giving permits at that time. there is something drastically wrong with a weapon is in a society the way we're doing it. nobody has any problem giving a gun, and most it's already allow some form of carrying a concealed weapon. the rub comes when a certain
state has more strict provisions in do need it then only to read that felons do get guns. i gather that they get conceal- carry a weapon permits. that leading article dealt specifically with the number of people who are real felons, not misdemeanors, but people who have been committed felons before that got guns, but somewhere and killed somebody. it is all right, i gather, if they can pass by every restriction. it is ok then for them to have begun. you and i know it is not ok. ok -- it is then ok for them to have a gun. borrowing from the start i amvern's provision,
coming up on 19 years in this institution. it seems to me that many spend a lot of time concerning themselves about guns, gay rights, and god. last week, i had to be reminded about my faith in god. this week, and i am getting ready to lead just about anybody carry a concealed weapon just about anywhere. i guess next week we will get around to marriage a quality issues and we will not have done one a single solitary thing to help an american have a job. you can have all the guns you need, no gay people are going to be around you, your children will not go to school with black people come and you will have no job. i saw him two years ago, and he told me that it came true. he does not have a job.
he does not have one because he is a carpenter that wanted guns and did not want black people with school with him more gay people to have marriage quality. didn't want black people to go to school with him and didn't want gay people to have marriage equality. you all can spend your >> the rule allows for an hour of general debate and 10 rules to be considered. the house will gavel in for that and will finish up the coast guard building alive to the house floor here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving and gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. help us this day to draw closer to you so that with your spirit and aware of your presence among us we may all face the
tasks of this day. bless the members of the people's house. help them to think clearly, speak confidently, and act courageously in the belief that all noble service is based upon patience, truth, and love. may these decisive days through which we are living, make them genuine enough to maintain their integrity, great enough to be humble, and good enough to keep their faith always regarding public office as a sacred trust. give them the wisdom and the courage to fail not their fellow citizens nor you. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today
will be led by the gentlelady from ohio, ms. fudge. ms. fudge: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests on each side for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in honor of captain dale getts killed in afghanistan by the enemy on august 30, 2010, in service to his country and his god. captain getts was a chaplain and baptist minister. mr. lamborn: the last time the
army lost a chaplain in combat it was in 1970 at the height of the vietnam war. the picture shows the memorial service at fort carson, colorado, and captain getts and other brave soldiers. if you look closely you'll see in place of a rifle there is a cross. chaplains, you see, are unarmed. captain getts leaves behind three sons, landon, caleb, and joel, and his loving and devoted wife, kristi. he will always be remembered by his family and frerneds who survive him -- friends who survive him and by his fellow soldiers for whom he gave so much. they'll remember his love of country, his bravery under fire, his devotion to others, and most much all a heart fully committed -- of all a heart fully committed to the heart and savior he served and loved so fully. greater love has no love than this that one lay down his life for his friends. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the
gentlewoman from california rise? without objection. miss chew: there was a time when -- ms. chu: there was a time when women and minorities were not able to vote. but because people fought back every u.s. citizen gained the right to vote, that is up until now. this year an unprecedented 42 bills were introduced in various states to deprive you of that right. states have passed voter i.d. laws that would stop 21 million legal u.s. citizens from voting. including your grandmother who was born in this country and lived her for 82 years. why? because she no longer drives and doesn't have a picture i.d. these laws would stop early voting and voting by mail so that if you know you have to travel out of town or have an operation on election day, you would be deprived of casting your vote. this threatens the very basis of our democratcy. we must work together to protect every american's right
to vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: madam speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: madam speaker, on friday congress will have the opportunity to vote on the balanced budget amendment. this legislation will limit congress from spending more than it receives in revenues unless both the house and senate agree with a 3/5 vote. under the current president, the national debt has increased at 34% and grown to almost $15 trillion. with the federal borrowing -- federal government borrowing 42 cents for every dollar it spends, it's past time to take action. fulfilling the first bill introduced by my predecessor, the late chairman floyd spence, for a balanced budget amendment. the passage of the balanced budget amendment will help grow the economy and create jobs. i hope both parties will come together and pass the balanced budget amendment which will put
america back to work and promote small business job creation. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? without objection. >> if anyone had a doubt that iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon, they could stop their questioning. mr. quigley: according to new report by the international atomic energy agency, they could have a bomb within a year. iran is not only developing the material for a nuclear weapon, but as the report makes clear, they are also pursuing the means to trigger and deliver a nuclear bomb, posing a threat to our ally, israel, our troops, and the entire region. given the report's findings, complames by iran's leaders that their nuclear weapon is peaceful are no longer credible, and the window for action to stop them is shrinking. we must execute crippling sacks
need immediately. we must put in place debilitating sanctions on the central bank of iran, a financer of the program. there could be no doubt that iran is pursuing a nuclear bomb. there could be no doubt we must and will do what it takes to stop them. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? without objection. >> thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to take this time to honor a constituent from my district, mr. ron rooney. mr. rooney is president and c.e.o. of the met dis center medical center. they have provided the quality medical care and continued to raise their service under his leadership. he graduated from george washington university with a master of business in health care administration and has used his expertise in health care to benefit his community for the past four years. in addition to his duties as president and c.e.o., he remains active in the health care community nationwide as a
member of the board of directors of d.h.a., he helps provide best practice force nonprofit hospitals throughout the united states. he previously served as chairman of the arkansas hospital association and remains active on the organization's governmental relations committee. as the son of a doctor, ron rooney has been surrounded by health care his entire life. he's raised his four children and seven grandchildren. his contribution is immeasurable and i want to say happy retirement after several, several years, decades of service. mr. rooney, we appreciate your service. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise. without objection. mr. walz: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to urge, no to implore my colleagues to support the stock act, and ask speaker boehner to bring this bill to the floor immediately. on sunday night the cbs news program 60 minutes highlighted a problem of potential insider trading on capitol hill. unlike other americans, members of congress and their staff are
not held legally responsible for profiting from nonpublic information they gain in their official positions. it's outrageous. when i came to congress several years ago, i couldn't believe it wasn't already a law. at a time when americans are understandably frustrated with bickering and gridlock here in congress, the one thing we can do is restore their trust in the system. this legislation is a big step in that direction of restoring that trust. it's very simple. it asks that if you are a member of congress, receive information, you cannot trade stocks to profit from those. it's a simple bill. i ask speaker boehner to allow this bill to come to the floor. let's make sure that the american people may differ with us on ideas and healthy debate is fine, but they must not believe the system is corrupt and people are gaming the system. i ask this be brought to the floor and i encourage my colleagues to vote for it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? without objection. >> thank you, madam speaker. last week i saw the results of
a survey of the businesses from the national federation of independent business. i want you to hear some of the concerns of the small businesses of the 14th congressional district of illinois. 88% of the small businesses support repeal of obamacare, something we have been working to achieve here in the house of representatives. 90% support passage of a balanced budget amendment. something this body will be voting on later this week. of which i also strongly support. small business knows as i do that the way we get our economy moving again is by shrinking the size of government, bringing confidence back to job creators, and getting washington bureaucrats off the backs of our nation's small businesses. we are working hard to do just that with the forgotten 20 bills that are now sitting over in the senate. and i look forward to continuing their fight. i also want to take this opportunity to say happy birthday to kristi and katie. wish i was home with you today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise. >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. baca: madam speaker, the property rate in california has risen from 11% to 17%. my constituents are hurting. and it's time for congress to live up to its responsibilities. in the 45 weeks since republicans took control of the house, they have failed to pass a single bill that creates jobs for the american people. the american job act contains bipartisan ideas. keeps our teachers, firefighters, and cops on the jobs. provides tax cuts to help small businesses grow and hire more workers. helps to rebuild our crumbling roads, bridges, and airports. puts more of our veterans who are returning troops back to work. this is a balanced approach to help fix the american job crisis. it's long past overdue. we need to bring it up for a vote. the 14 million americans
looking for a job can't wait any longer. they need a job. let's act now. let's pass the job act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. berg: madam speaker, 15 years ago a balanced budget amendment by a single vote failed in the senate. since then our debt has tripled largely due to president obama's increased spending. in fact, it took our nation over 200 years to accumulate the same amount of debt as we have accumulated in the last 2 1/2 years. in north dakota we know that you can't do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. this week congress has the opportunity to get it right. in north dakota we balance our budget, we work to leave that
next generation better off. washington could learn a lot from north dakota. and that's why i will proudly vote for a balanced budget amendment this week. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? without objection. ms. fudge: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to applaud the state of ohio as the first state to pass legislation designating december 1 as rosa parks day. house bill 421 introduced in 2005 by then state representative joyce badey, who is with us today, honors the life and legacy of the mother of the civil rights movement. ohio continues to honor rosa parks with an annual statewide tribute on december 1, and it is entitled the power of one. this tribute which is a partnership between the ohio state university, the ohio historical society, the ohio civil rights commission, and the central ohio transit
authority celebrates the day when rosa parks took a stand by staying seated. it includes a children's assembly that welcomes 800 school children to learn and be inspired by her legacy. i am proud to recognize the great state of ohio for commemorating rosa parks' legacy of inspiration and courage, and our state's ongoing commitment to educating young people about civil rights. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? without objection. mr. lankford: madam speaker, in my district we disagree a lot about football, but we strongly agree that the federal government must balance its budget. as a freshman i have seen firsthand this body will only make the hard decision when is they have to make the hard decisions. though we don't agree, that we need to balance a budget every time and every place, we do understand that as a federal budget over the course of a year we must balance our
budget. we don't do that because the constitution doesn't require it. it's time to change that reality. in 1995 this body overwhelmingly approved a simple balanced budget amendment and it required that if we would balance our budget each year. it failed in the senate by one vote. passing overwhelmingly in the house. if it had passed both bodies, we would have passed the budget by 2005. our total debt in 2005 was $7.5 trillion. it is now $15 trillion. . now we stand here debating if this is a good approach. they should not berate the 2011 in passing onto their generation an even bigger debt. let's build a wall around our federal checkbook and pass the balanced budget amendment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. sires: to address the house
for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sires: madam speaker, i rise today to bring attention to the great need to update our nation's infrastructure, and in particular the bridges. bridges play a vital role in moving people and goods and more bridges are fall into this state of dess repair. a total of 600,000 bridges with 11.5% of our nation's bridges are considered deficient and requires significant maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement. in the new jersey portion of new york city metropolitan area over eight million vehicles cross a deficient bridge every day. the infrastructure in the united states is crumbling, and the backlog of deficient bridges is growing. congress has not been able to pass a long-term transportation funding bill for two years. we're still working at a fiscal year 2012 budget that will provide states with important transportation funding. this year the construction
industry has been suffering from unemployment rates of up to 20%. investing in bridges will create jobs today, keep americans safe and ensure economic development for the future. madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to pass legislation to strengthen our transportation infrastructure and put people back to work. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pitts: while we see people stand up to thugs and extremists and demand a free and peaceful egypt, deeply disturbing cases are occurring. on october 16, iman was in his arabic class when his teacher told him to get rid of the cross tattooed on his wrist. the teacher asked the other students, what are we going to do about this? and incited the students in the class to attack iman. he tried to flee but ultimately
the students, with the support of their teachers, murdered this young mafpblet egyptian media, controlled by the military government, has tried to deny the sectarian reasons for this brutal murder. after anti-discrimination laws took place when egyptian security forces ran over cops with bulldozers, will those teachers, adults and students be brought to justice for this brutal murder? the egyptian law enforcement should bring this to justice. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? -- hawaii rise? ms. hanabusa: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. hanabusa: there were 21
asian pacific countries represented at an event. the prime minister of japan and russia, to name a few. it's important to note what was dominating the conversations was the rising dominance of china. the president, our president asked china to end the policies of keeping the yuan artificially low. it is artificially low, 28% to 30%. think about our economy if they would just re-evaluate. it will increase their g.d.p. by 285 billion dollars in just 18 months. and our deficit will be reduced between $672 billion to $800 billion in just 10 years. madam speaker, why haven't we taken up the issue of the re-evaluation of the yuaan? our senate passed it in october. the currency oversight act. the united states should
maintain its dominance and position. please bring that bill up to the floor. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, there is a difference between president obama's rhetoric and the reality for the american people. he says we can't wait for more u.s. manufacturing and construction jobs. mr. flores: he says we can't wait for more middle-class jobs. he says we can't wait to wean ourselves off of middle eastern oil. he says we can't wait to reduce our foreign trade deficits. he says we can't wait to reduce our federal budget deficit. these are the things he says but is not the things he's doing. by delaying the keystone x.l. pipeline project he's putting the american people in jeopardy by doing the following -- he's killing manufacturing job opportunities, he's sending billions of dollars each week to terrorist-friendly countries, hurting our security
and our international trade deficit. he's eliminating one of the tools to reduce the federal deficit. instead, he keeps wasting billions of dollars of our children's and grandchildren's future on failed washington programs like solyndra, building cars in finland. if the president is serious about creating good, shovel-ready american middle-class jobs based on main street solutions and not washington solutions he'd move forward with the keystone x.l. project now. we can't wait for main street job solutions. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from the northern mariana islands rise? mr. sablan: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sablan: madam speaker, 25 years ago a group of forward-thinking and civic-minded individuals realized the need for volunteer support and fundraising for the new hospital nearing completion in the northern mariana islands.
so was born the commonwealth health center volunteer association. the volunteers have made tremendous contributions to our hospitals in saipan and rota and has made a difference to the experience of every patient who receives health care in the northern marianas. since its founding, the group has made over $2 million in medical equipment and supplies. many of these donations include life-saving diagnostic and other equipment and improves the quality of lives for patients and their families. the volunteers have withstood the many challenges that have faced our community in the last 25 years and that's a good indication of their ability to successfully navigate the next 25. please join me in celebrating the wonderful men and women who founded and over the years passed and supported the commonwealth health center volunteers association. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bilirakis: madam speaker, last night i held a tell town hall meeting and spoke with hundreds of my constituents about the pressing issues facing america today. many people on the call spoke about the need for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution and an overwhelming majority replied in is survey that there should be a balanced budget amendment. i was pleased to report to them that the house will be voting this week on a balanced budget amendment that will help washington get its fiscal house in order and it will reverse the dangerous practices of saddling our future generations with insurmountable debt. a balanced budget amendment, madam speaker, is not a radical idea. it's a normal expectation for hardworking taxpayers, families and businesses as well as state governments. why not the federal government, madam speaker? thank you very much, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.
for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. yarmuth: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. yarmuth: thank you. the average american household has lost $8,000 of income over the last few years. if we want to put a number on the economic crisis facing our country right now, that should be it. if you ask the average person how to get $8,000 back into the pockets of american families, you get some pretty good answers. but if you ask the average congressional republican, you'd get an answer that's so out of touch with reality you'd think they were creating policy by playing mad libs. the children's game to provide random words to complete a story we haven't seen. that seems like the only inconceivable plan. think about how they fill in this blank. the best way to get americans back to work is -- poison our air and water, get rid of consumer protections, end medicare. it's like they haven't read the question. it's no surprise americans find the g.o.p.'s mad libs economics
maddening. it's time to stop playing games and start building an economy that works for all americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, both parties in this congress have supported job creations. in fact on this house daily both republicans and democrats have said the jobs should be our top priority. the president stated in recent months he would pivot his time and energy to focus on jobs. last week this congress pivotted away from jobs again when they would delay the construction of the canadian keystone x.l. pipeline and along with this delay killing the potential to create 20,000 jobs. this $7 billion pipeline would bring oil from canada to refineries in the united states and is expected to add billions of dollars of investment in the american economy. mr. yoder: with the economy continuing to struggle, we
can't wait to create these new jobs. the american people are tired of seeing their government say one thing and do another. it's time for the rhetoric to meet the road and i ask this administration to reconsider its decision, to unify this country back to focus on jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. lee: thank you. madam speaker, i rise to call on republicans to wake up to the needs of americans -- millions of americans, mind you, and to create jobs. the republican-led congress has led almost an entire year without enacting a single piece of jobs legislation. madam speaker, america cannot wait. republicans continue to ignore the crisis of unemployment and poverty in america and instead keep bringing more bills to bail out the wealthy. let's stop bailing out wall street and bring some real relief to main street.
let's stop wasting time, pretending that markets can regulate themselves. we need strong oversight so that we have no more bernie madoffs and bank bailouts. last stop wasting time that the tax cuts for the wealthy pay for themselves. we need corporations and the wealthy to pay their fair share. last week i held a jobs fair. thousands showed up. people want to work. this is a national emergency. let's reignite the american dream by passing the american jobs act now. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: madam speaker, the troops in iraq will be home by christmas. also coming back to america is a large amount of military equipment. why not send some of that taxpayer-funded equipment to secure our southern border? our border sheriffs say they were outmanned, outgunned and outfinanced by the drug
cartels. so today i've introduced legislation which mandates that 10% of certain military equipment coming back from iraq will go to our southern border. if there's an urgent need, the equipment could be kept by the department of defense. this equipment includes humvees, night vision equipment and surveillance u.a.v.'s. this is not a new idea. the department of defense already has a program for distribution of surplus equipment. my legislation will simply utilize this already existing program, expand it and allocate resources to our southern border. americans have paid for this equipment to bring safety and security to the people of iraq. it's time we use this equipment to protect our own citizens from the invasion of the drug cartels, and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. connolly: failure is not an
option. the american people expect us to do our job. world markets are watching. balance is demanded. $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction is the minimum mall target we must meet. current federal spending is 25% of g.d.p. it's too high. but revenue is only 14% to 15% of g.d.p. it's too low. it is the responsibility not to ignore one of those two data points. it's not rocket science. it requires both parties to do what a clear majority of americans want us to do, break out of our respective straight jacket orthodoxes. i was pround to join 100 bipartisan members of this body urging the supercommittee to go big, find $4 trillion in deficit reduction. so it would reduce the debt to a more manageable percentage of g.d.p., reassure markets, preserve our nation's a.a.a. bond rating and provide the stability to get this economy growing again.
i urge my colleagues on the supercommittee to join us and go big for america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: instead of republican legislatures across america, madam speaker, focusing on creating jobs in their states, working with this congress to create jobs, we find ourselves shackled by 40 states implementing voter i.d. laws, laws, provisions that limit voting by requiring the presentation of photo identification that however is limited to state authorized voter i.d. which has a negative impact on our seniors. laws that exclude the most common forms of i.d., student i.d.'s and social security cards, but they offer no alternative procedures. . change is requiring outright elimination of early voting opportunities, barriers to first-time voters such as the elimination of same day registration.
madam speaker, couldn't we do better than to counter the 15th amendment which indicates that there should be no laws that withdraw anyone's right to vote or even the 24th amendment that indicates that we should not have a poll tax to allow people to vote? rather than creating jobs through passing the american jobs act, or standing up and denouncing sexual abuse of children which is a crisis and an outrage, we are stopping people from voting by putting in place voter i.d. laws. voter suppression, the constitution will not tolerate it. the 15th amendment and 24th amendment. let us open the opportunity for all people and fight the real issues that the american people want us to address. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the -- the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? without objection. mr. mcgovern: there's a lot of talk about the supercommittee and deficit reduction. madam speaker, what we need a supercommittee for jobs. here's the deal. if we can create more jobs, we can reduce our deficit. but my republican friends have
gone out of their way to talk about everything on this house floor except jobs. they refuse to bring the president's jobs bill to the floor. they refuse to invest in our roads, bridges, and infrastructure. they are threatening to cut medical research, medicare, and funds for education, and all they seem to care about is making sure that the top 1% of income earners are protected from paying their fair share. it's time for a new agenda, madam speaker. it's time for a jobs agenda. it's time for the republican leadership to focus and get to work. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. one minutes is concluded. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 463 for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 90, house resolution 463, resolved, that at any time
after the adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 822, to amend title 18 united states code to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a state may carry concealed firearms in the state. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
committee on the judiciary now printed in the bill. the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as
may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nay a substitute. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida, mr. nugent, is recognized for one hour. mr. nugent: for the purposes of debate only, the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from worcester, massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent on all members that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nugent: madam speaker, i rise today in support of this rule, house resolution 463.
the rule provides for consideration to an important piece of legislation, h.r. 822. the national right to carry press ross it act of 2011. i'm proud to sponsor this rule which provides for a structured amendment process that will allow members to have a thorough debate on a wide variety of relevant and germane amendments to h.r. 822. we have allowed 10 amendments to this bill, two republican amendments, and eight democratic amendments. even as contense -- contentious bill, a bill that would be easy to shut down the process, we are not only allowing amendments, but those debated on the floor, the vast majority are democratic amendments. we did this not because it was the easy thing to do, we did it because it was the right thing to do. it brought transparency to the debate and it is in keeping with the promises of the republican party made to the american people for a freer,
more open process. madam speaker, until coming to this body 10 months ago, i spent my entire career as a cop. the last 10 years of sheriff in hernando county, florida. during my 38 years in law enforcement, i found disarming honest citizens does nothing to reduce crime. if anything, all it does is keep law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves from violent criminals. although i know this just from my experience, research backs up the claim. for example, statistics indicate that citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. in my home state of florida, only .01% of nearly 1.2 million permits have been revoked because of firearms crimes committed by permit holders. additionally, evidence indicates the crime declines in states with rights to carry laws. since florida became a right to carry state in 1987.
florida's violent total crime and murder rates have dropped 32% and 58% respectively. because of this evidence as well as my firsthand experience, i'm a proud defender of our second amendment right, ensuring the right that people keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. my history as a law enforcement officer is also why i'm a proud co-sponsor of h.r. 822, the national right to carry rest prosity act of 2011. rr 822 is a good bipartisan bill which enhances constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners. today if i drive from my home state of florida into georgia, georgia recognizes my florida driver's license. it's still valid even once i cross the state line. h.r. 822 requires states to recognize each other's legally issued concealed carry permits in the same way. this legislation would take a comprehensive approach to helping law-abiding citizens navigate the patchwork of state
concealed carry laws. 822 does not, let me repeat, does not create a national concealed carry permit system nor does it establish any nationalized standard for carry permit. h.r. 822 respects states' abilities to create their own gun usage laws as well as their own permitting processes. i'm sure that you'll hear arguments from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying that 822, h.r. 822, somehow makes it easier for people to get a gun. let me assure you that, again, this is not the case. this legislation cost not mandate that anyone suddenly be given a gun, nor does it relax any of the state's current permitting laws. during my nearly 40 years as a cop, i learn you just can't talk about guns. when you are talking about gun crime, you need to look at two distinct classes of guns, they are illegal guns and legal
guns. i can tell you as a cop you don't worry about the legal guns. the guns that people brought from an authorized source, that they are registered and proper authorities. they took the necessary class to learn how to use them responsibly, and they got their legal concealed carry permit. in my experience you worry about the illegal guns. guns that are somebody purposefully brought them off the radar. either because they aren't legally allowed to own a gun or because they are going to use them for an illegal purpose. h.r. 822 doesn't get into that difference. what it does is ensures that a legal gun owner doesn't accidentally break the law simply because they brought their fully permitted gun to another state. this legislation simply gives peace of mind to americans traveling across state lines with legally registered concealed firearm knowing they can practice their constitutional right to bear arms. again i'm a proud co-sponsor of
h.r. 822 and support its passage. with that i encourage all my colleagues 20 vote yes on the rule, yes on the underlying legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman from florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, first of all let me rise in opposition to this yet -- this restrictive rule. yet another restrictive rule. a lot of good amendments were not made in order and members do not have the right to offer amendments as they see fit during this debate. i would urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule for that reason. madam speaker, another week and another hot button social issue is being brought to the floor by this extreme republican leadership. a few weeks ago this house debated an abortion bill. that's months after we considered legislation to defund planned parenthood. this republican leadership has
tried hard to overturn the clean air act and clean water act simply because the corporate constituency demands it. and now we are turning to guns. we are about to debate legislation that makes it easier to carry concealed weapons in the united states. in fact, we are considering a bill that will make it easier for convicted felons. yet what do americans want most of all right now? are they screaming about -- for a lengthy debate on abortion issues? do they want us debating whether or not we need to reaffirm our national motto? are they clamoring for more lenient gun laws? no, madam speaker. the american people want jobs. -j -- j-o-b-s. maybe they are covering their eyes and plugging their ears hoping this crisis will magically disappear. that may work for a 6-year-old who is scared of ghosts, but that's not how you govern a country. our unemployment rate is 9%.
there are just under 14 million unemployed americans. millions more are earning less now than they were before the economic crisis simply because they were forced with a choice to take a lower paying job or face unemployment. what's the republican response to this problem? not a jobs bill. in fact the republicans haven't brought up a jobs bill once in this congress. what then is their response to the jobs problem? surprise, surprise, it's a gun bill. madam speaker, what are we doing here? this is nuts. this isn't what the american people sent us here to do. the irony is many of the new republicans who were allegedly sent here because of their opposition of federal encroachment on states' rights, here we are debating a bill that imposes the federal role on states even undermines state's laws. this is crazy in normal times, madam speaker. it's on crazier today. unlike the resolution reaffirming our national motto we debate add few weeks ago, this legislation will have real impacts on people's lives. madam speaker, people will be hurt because of this
legislation. people in fact may die because of this bill. don't take my word for it, look at the facts. the bill obliterates state and local eligibility rules for concealed weapons. it eliminates the state's correction to honor another state's permits. it requires states with responsible restrictions like my home state of massachusetts to allow people with permits from states with lax laws to bring concealed weapons into those states. simply it allows a person to bring a hidden loaded gun into a state where under today's laws they are currently ineligible to carry a concealed weapon. now, there are reasons states don't allow certain people to carry concealed weapons, and each state is different. my home state of massachusetts doesn't issue concealed weapons permits to people who have specific dangerous misdemeanor criminal convictions or alcohol abuse problems. as well as people who have not completed firearm safety training. people who do not have a good character or those who are under the age of 21. i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record
following my remarks a letter from the massachusetts secretary of public safety and security in opposition to this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: under this bill a person convicted of spousal abuse in one state could go to a second state for a concealed weapon permit. when they get that pr mitt this bill allow that is felon to bring their weapon into massachusetts even though they would not be eligible for concealed weapon permit under current massachusetts laws. my friends on the other side of the aisle will say that this bill is necessary. that more guns mean less crime. that people need to be able to protect themselves. . well, mayors against illegal guns strongly opposes this bill because it makes our cities less, not more, less safe. the boston and new york city mayor is made up of six00 mayors, representing law-abiding gun owners and keeping guns out of dangerous people.
mayor tom binido has been a champion under this. the international association of chiefs police oppose this. the police foundation, the national latino police officers association and the national organization of black law enforcement executives. in fact, not only does the american bar association oppose this bill, so does the association of prosecuting attorneys. i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record following my remarks the statement by the mayors against illegal guns in opposition to 822. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker,, in addition to the mayor, we are part of the stop hand gunned violence. the founder, john rosenthal, it keeps our citizens safe. massachusetts has the most comprehensive and gun violence prevention laws and lowest
fatality rate of any urban industrial state and second lowest overall behind hawaii. every day more than 150 americans are shot, and 83 die from gun violence in the united states. a child under 20 years old dies from gun violence every three hours. eight kids every single day. we could fill fenway park three times with -- three times over with 110,000 kids under 20 years old killed by guns in the past 30 years. and there's still no national law requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales in the u.s. in fact, in 33 states there is no background check requirement or even proof of i.d. for private combun sales. and today we're going to make it easier -- we will make it even easier for these people to carry concealed weapons. massachusetts is the leader in gun violence prevention. we should be working to prevent gun violence, not encouraging it with legislation like this. madam speaker, federal preemption of massachusetts law will only result in more innocent and largely
preventable gun deaths in my home state. the same holds true for nearly every state in the union. preempting state gun laws will make this country less safe. i cannot and will not support legislation that will make our states and neighborhoods less safe. madam speaker, let me conclude by saying, if we want to combat crime, if we want to make our be neighborhoods safer, i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with us, you know, and bring the president's jobs bill to the floor. let's provide people with jobs and economic security. let's revitalize our neighborhoods that are struggling in poverty. that's what we should be doing. not debating a bill that makes it easier to conceal weapons. i ask my colleagues to vote none the rule and the final bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: madam speaker, you know, my colleague on the other side of the aisle talks about jobs bills. we are not talking about it right now. but if you look at this card, we have over 20 jobs bills that
have passed out of this body that are sitting in the senate today. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, at this time i am proud to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, the ranking member of the rules committee, ms. slaughter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for three minutes. ms. slaughter: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. this is serious piece of work for me today because less than a year ago one of our colleagues from arizona was shot in the head while she was trying to convene with her constituents outside a supermarket. the mayhem was awful. a little 19-year-old girl named christina taylor green, baseball fan, who just came to see her congresswoman, was killed. and by all counts an extraordinary federal judge died. as well as some of gabby's staff. numbers of people wounded.
and yet the only person ever considered by this house would be the guy and his right to have that gun. what about the rights for the rest of us? are we going to have to learn to dance up and down the street to try to escape the bullets? what happens to us? where are our -- where is the amendment for us that we can be safe? the statistics of people being killed in places of worship, the rising number of people in law enforcement who face unspeakable and awful things because we won't do our job here to disarm people who are mentally ill. and i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record an article from "the new york times" of how easy it is for felons, including the mentally ill, to regain their gun rights. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: now, when are we going to reinstate in this house the automatic weapons ban? and why don't we outlaw guns that are so powerful that they serve no purpose at all in a civilized society?
why don't we hold a guilty individual -- in the face of iphones and androids, surely that is more important job for us to do here than what we are doing to say you can carry a concealed weapon anywhere you can go because that's who we are? apparently the republican majority wants that. based on today's bill, they think it's important to pass legislation that will make it easier to carry a gun to a public carrying, easier to carry a loaded gun to an nfl stadium, easier to carry a gun into your supermarket or temple or church. what in the world -- how can we ever explain that to people who have had gun deaths in their family? the horrible shooting of our colleague wouldn't have been stopped with the passage of today's bill and no one's made safer by allowing guns into
public space. but since last january congress has not considered a single piece of legislation. it would make it harder for a mentally ill individual to get a gun. we have done nothing at all to make sure another nightmare like the one in tucson doesn't visit our country again, leaving innocent children, men and women victims to a loaded gun. and yet the only person we care about here is the gun owner. the only explanation we are considering would make it more convenient to carry your gun even in states that don't want it. realizing this fact really puts the morality of this agenda into perspective. we should be -- mr. mcgovern: i yield an additional one minute. ms. slaughter: thank you. congress should be considering legislation that will help the american people, not legislation that would fulfills an ideological agenda, which is what we've been doing all year. i urge my colleagues to vigorously oppose today's legislation and i yield back
the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: madam speaker, in 2007 a colorado man shot -- colorado man named matthew murray allegedly wrote online, all i want to do is kill and injure as many christians as i can. murray then went on to a shooting rampage, killing two young children outside a missionary training center outside denver and then at a gathering of 7,000 people in colorado springs, colorado, with a rifle in a backpack full of ammunition. murray killed two sisters. murray was ultimately stopped and killed by a church member and a volunteer security guard, jeannie, who has a concealed carry permit and once worked in law enforcement. essam shot murray several times leading him to kill himself. i reserve the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i'd yield three minutes to the gentleman from colorado, a member of the rules committee, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. polis: in hearing the story of my friend from florida, my colleague in the rules committee, again, i think it just emphasizes that my state, colorado, already has a concealed carry process. we have a must issue provision to some of our county this was who were not issuing and denying issuance unreasonableably, highlights this entire bill is a dangerous solution in search of a problem. colorado has reciprocal concealed carry arrangement in over 30 states, including all of our neighboring states. you can drive to colorado and wyoming in the south. you can drive from colorado to new mexico -- arizona -- sorry -- in the north, wyoming, in the south, in new mexico, east or west. you are in no danger about your concealed weapon permit not being recognized. and, yes, there are some states we don't have a repick rickal agreement from.
-- reciprocal agreement from. the state of nevada. the proper venue is not for the people of the sovereign state of nevada and the sovereign state of colorado to alike leadership that will work on a reciprocal carry arrangement if that's what they want to do. if there's real issue there and my constituents are hampered by their ability not to have their colorado concealed weapons permit recognized, let's say in the state of california, that's a matter between the states. openly the door -- opening the door for federal intervention in this very sensitive area opens the door to a federal gun owner registry, which a number of gun owners -- gun rights advocates in my district have expressed a great deal of worry over. as well as open the door for a whole host of other problems that can come from washington, d.c., bureaucrats deciding where you can and can't take your guns rather than protecting our second amendment in the states. some other concerns that have been articulated to me from some of the gun owners rights
groups in the state of colorado, they're worried about more onerous standards to require a permit. they're worried about a national database of permitholders. they're also worried about this provision nullfying the constitutional carry provisions that are on the books in arizona, alaska, vermont and wyoming and that states that have a popular election method of amending the constitution are able to do. so, again, what's the problem? i have not had any constituents contact me worried that they can't use their concealed weapons permit in a particular state. i think they're generally and i have many conceal-carry licenseholders in my district. i don't happen to be one myself. they can drive across state borders and not worry about relicensing or notifying authorities in that state. i think the gentleman from florida articulated an example of colorado where our concealed-carry permitholder helped save some lives.
i think that's a fine and good thing. i asked the chair of the judiciary committee in rules whether or not he thought this provision was constitutionally required to prosect the second amendment. he said, no, the second amendment can be the states does not have to have a concealed weapons system. concealed-carry. it has to be a discretion to the state. that's why i will encourage my colleagues to vote no on this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: and the gentleman talks about states rights and we agree. there are states that do not have concealed permit and carry permits. and so it is within the states' rights to decide whether or not how they're going to regulate that particular issue in regards to weapons in their state. i'd like to, madam speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from north carolina, dr. foxx.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. and i thank my colleague from florida for handling the rule. madam speaker, i rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. as a life member of the national rifle association and strong supporter of the second amendment to the united states constitution, i am pleased to speak in support of h.r. 822, the national right to carry reciprocity act, which will help protect law-abiding american citizens' right to bear arms. the supreme court ruled in district of columbia vs. heller that, quote, the inherent right of self-defense has been essential to the second amendment right, end quote. and in mcdonald vs. the city of chicago, that the federal government can intervene to ensure that state and local governments are not restricting second amendment rights. statistics show a correlation between right to carry laws and
a decrease in violent crime rights. according to the f.b.i. uniformed crime report, states that have rite-to-carry laws have 22% lower violent crime rates, 30% lower murder rates, 46% lower robbery rates and 12% lower aggravated assault rates compared to the rest of the country. law-abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves from criminals and defend themselves with firearms. throughout my career in elected office i have worked with my colleagues to ensure that american citizens maintain their second amendment rights. each state has different eligibility requirements, and h.r. 822 maintains the states' ability to set its own eligibility. however, the bill will end uncertain and confusion for conceal permit holders